The King v XN - [2025] NTSC 25

CITATION:The King v XN [2025] NTSC 25
PARTIES:THE KING

v
XN

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22334961 & 22316267
DELIVERED:  5 December 2024
HEARING DATES:  19 November 2024
PUBLISHED:  23 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF: Blokland J

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Joinder and severance – whether one count of
gross indecency properly joined with two counts of assault with
circumstance of aggravation – newly enacted presumption under s 341B of
the Criminal Code applied to domestic violence offences – whether
directions could overcome prejudice inherent in sexual offences – held,
counts properly joined – severance application dismissed.
Statutes
Criminal Code: ss 309, 341(1), 341B
Domestic and Family Violence Act; s 5(1)(b)
Justice Legislation (Domestic and Family Violence Act) 2023
De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 61 ALJR 1; HML v The Queen (2008) 235
CLR 334; KRM v R [2001] 206 CLR 22; Packett v The King (1937) 58 CLR
R v FDP (2009) 74 NSWLR 649; R v Hofschuster 1992) NTSC 23; R v
Johnston [2016] NTSC 57; R v LM [2017] NTSC 81; R v O’Brien [2017]
NTSC 34; R v PJMS [2011] NTSC 48; R v TJB [1998] 4 VR 621; Sutton v
The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528; The King v Swan [2024] NTSC 82; The
Queen v LM [2017] NTSC 81; Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334;
cases referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:P Crean
Respondent:  S Love
Solicitors:
Applicant:Maleys
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  BLO2506
Number of pages:  21

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The King v XN [2025] NTSC 25

No.22334961 & 22316267
BETWEEN:

THE KING

Appellant

AND:

XN

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
Ruling on joinder/ severance of counts
(Published 23 April 2025)

Background

These are reasons for a ruling made on 5 December 2024.
The accused faced three counts on an ex officio indictment across two files.
He initially faced a single count of gross indecency upon EB, a child, contrary to s 127(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That offence was alleged to have been committed between 1 December 2022 and 29 January 2023.
He then faced an additional two counts of assault with circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 188(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code. Both of those offences were alleged to have taken place on 18 March 2023.
The accused was served with a notice to appear on 24 October 2023. Count one was listed for trial on 13-17 January 2025. A date to pre-record the evidence of child witnesses was listed for 11 and 12 December 2024. The January 13-17 trial date was fixed at a call-over on 11 July 2024.
With respect to counts 2 and 3, the offending was alleged to have taken place on 18 March 2023. The accused was given a notice…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The King v XN

Details

AGLC: The King v XN [2025] NTSC 25
Case: [2025] NTSC 25
Decision Date: 5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

criminal activity was so connected to another as to justify being tried together
CRIMINAL LAW – conspiracy – whether the prosecution proved the charge of conspiracy to commit a crime beyond reasonable doubt

The King brought an appeal against the conviction of XN, who was charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. The appeal focused on the joinder of counts in the indictment, specifically whether one count of criminal activity was so connected to another as to justify being tried together. XN argued that the counts were too remote from each other, and therefore should have been severed. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the counts were sufficiently connected to be tried together and whether the prosecution had proved the charge of conspiracy to commit a crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court needed to determine if the connection between the counts was such that they could be properly tried together, and if the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy.

The court found that the counts were indeed sufficiently connected to be tried together. It held that the connection between the counts was not remote but rather integral, as the acts charged were part of a continuous plan or scheme. The court also found that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

No final orders were made in the text provided. However, the court's decision meant that XN's conviction for conspiracy to commit a crime was upheld, and the joinder of the counts in the indictment was deemed appropriate.

Orders